Mike Lorrey wrote:
> THis is the force initiation principle at work. We never hurt the afghan
> people, in fact, we supported them in their fight against an oppressor
> for ten years with hundreds of millions of dollars. They turn around and
> allow a government like the Taliban to decide that we, their allies, are
> the enemy. So, this is not a case of us just killing a people we have
> never met, never had any beef with. We helped them, they turn around and
> betray us and host a group on their soil that attacks us. In the muslim
> world, if your house guest commits a crime against your neighbor, you
> are responsible for that crime.
>
In the process of creating many tens of thousands of guerillas
to repel the Soviets in Afghanistan, many of whom were and are
Islamic radicals, we set ourselves up for something like the
Taliban and worse. They did not just arbitrarily decide we were
bad guys. A bunch of highly trained and committed people were
created and left hanging. Eventually some of them decided
Americans and American presence were to be fought. Not at all
surprising really. They cannot "betray us" when they were never
ours. We used them and helped them to stop Russia in the
region. But that does not mean they were every "ours". We are
no longer considered "guests" where bin Laden is a hero, not a
guest.
> This is also a responsibility issue. Many, if not most, muslim nations
> tend to hold, to a greater or lesser degree, to the idea that attacks on
> muslim nations by infidels are attacks on all, that allowing infidel
> armies into muslim lands, even in defense of a muslim nation, is an
> affront to Islam (this is the whole basis for bin Laden's arguments that
> have gained credence among the common people of the muslim world). If
> this is so, then it is up to muslim nations to be responsible for the
> defense of muslim nations, AND for the policing of their own. The
> Taliban, and bin Laden, exist because muslim nations around the world
> allow them to exist. If they truly believe that western armies should
> stay out of muslim nations, they should take care of this problem
> themselves.
>
The Taliban, bin Laden and the tens of thousands of trained
troops and insurgents exist period. None of the nations could
take them out and for many of them, it is seen as against their
own interest to do so as these are troops they can use in some
cases.
> Nor do I think that we will go as far in prosecuting this 'war' as the
> present jingoism would have us believe. Given past history, I predict
> that the Taliban will be quickly defeated in the field and will hand
> over the live or dead bodies of al Qaeda. We will impose some rules on
> them for the treatment of their people, which they will promptly ignore
> when we disembark from that part of the world too soon, because we will
> not want to look like we are oppressing other people too much. We may
> get in a few more licks on Saddam, but he will stay around as well,
> because when it comes down to it, there are too many Americans who
> haven't got the guts to get the job done, and they continue to disguise
Given recent information on this list I think you are dreaming.
There is no easy way to find and disarm all of the highly
trained fanatic soldiers in this region or even a significant
percentage of them. The guts needed to fully take care of the
problem are huge. I don't think you appreciate how much it
would take yet.
> it as a dislike of 'killing innocencts', or of 'going too far'.
>
> The world will look much like it does now when we are done, and Bush
> will lose reelection as well due to dissatisfaction with the result, and
> terrorism will rise up again to attack us with even greater violence,
> with nukes, biologicals, or chemical weapons. Our nation will lose all
> trust of the citizenry, and we will devolve into a fascist camp of ever
> more limited liberties.
>
That is possible no matter what we do in the MidEast now. If
many sleepers are in this country and start to be awakened it
may even be required that very tight security is implemented for
a time in order to avoid not thousands more but perhaps millions
being killed. I don't like that at all and I hope to hell it is
not necessary.
> Is this the sort of future you really want? I don't, but I'm already
> hearing the whining from many who don't want to do what it takes to
> finish the job and eliminate terrorism once and for all.
Are you willing? It will cost most likely at least a million US
troops to lose their lives and cost more financially, most
likely, than Vietnam did to wipe out the threat that
completely. Do you want to take that on?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:49 MDT